Voting is immoral!, pt2. Trumpian Boogaloo

[dsayers]

It's okay to say, "I don't understand how you arrived at that conclusion. Tell me more." 

 

No one needs your permission to ask you questions, and they don't specifically need your validation either.

You didn't read it, did you? NotDarkYet is pretending to not understand what's being communicated, even after it was explained (see provided link). Dogmatic rejection of definitions, responding to "not understanding" with hostility rather than curiosity is a sign of emotional necessity. What I did was point this out. Since I can see this, what do you think it reveals to me the way you responded to something that wasn't talking to/about you (until now)?

[DaVinci]

You didn't read it, did you? NotDarkYet is pretending to not understand what's being communicated, even after it was explained (see provided link). Dogmatic rejection of definitions, responding to "not understanding" with hostility rather than curiosity is a sign of emotional necessity. What I did was point this out. Since I can see this, what do you think it reveals to me the way you responded to something that wasn't talking to/about you (until now)?

 

I've approached your posts with curiosity several times recently only to be ignored. 

[NotDarkYet]

D-Sayers, 

 

A:   If voting can never legitimize the State (as I believe), then voting is not immoral - because you can't legitimize the State - no matter how many people vote. 

 

B:   If voting does legitimize the State (which you seem to believe), we would need 0% voter turnout to "prove" the state isn't legitimate. 

 

 

If you believe "B", then you believe in democracy....just that we shouldn't do it.  

 

In any case, we shall wait forever for people to not vote.  And if nobody voted, the State wouldn't down their weapons anyway.

 

I have repeated the core thesis ("A") numerous times, and you've never rebutted it. 

[Will Torbald]

What is a negative preference?

 

For example, in a system where voting was actually about expressing your preference, you could have casted a negative vote against Clinton instead of voting in favor of Trump. Or you could have casted two negative votes instead of not voting. Preferences are positive (love) neutral (apathy) or negative (hate), but democracy as it is now isn't about preference. It's about counting heads, see who has more people, and use it as a proxy for civil conflict and mean "if we fought for the government, we would win because we're more".

[dsayers]

you've never rebutted it. 

[NotDarkYet]

 

You still haven't rebutted this...

 

 

 

A:   If voting can never legitimize the State (as I believe), then voting is not immoral - because the state is illegitimate by definition. Voting doesn't change the nature of the State.

 

B:   If voting does legitimize the State (which you seem to believe), then you believe in democracy....just that we shouldn't do it.  

 

 

 

The only rebuttal you've attempted is:   Voting "seems" like it's legitimizing the state.  Are we really resorting to "seems"?  I thought this was a philosophy board.

 

 

In any case, we shall wait forever for people to not vote.  And if nobody voted, the State wouldn't down their weapons anyway.

[Gavitor]

You still haven't rebutted this...

 

And he never will.

[Guest Gee]

For example, in a system where voting was actually about expressing your preference, you could have casted a negative vote against Clinton instead of voting in favor of Trump. Or you could have casted two negative votes instead of not voting. Preferences are positive (love) neutral (apathy) or negative (hate), but democracy as it is now isn't about preference. It's about counting heads, see who has more people, and use it as a proxy for civil conflict and mean "if we fought for the government, we would win because we're more".

 

So you want two options, the end result of which is exactly the same as voting or not voting? And if you don't have these options, the end result of which is exactly the same as the options you have, then the options you have are not options?

[EclecticIdealist]

The only rebuttal you've attempted is: Voting "seems" like it's legitimizing the state. Are we really resorting to "seems"? I thought this was a philosophy board.

 

In any case, we shall wait forever for people to not vote. And if nobody voted, the State wouldn't down their weapons anyway.

What precisely is meant by "legitimize". If one means "to make legal" and thereby serve as a universally justifiable defense of action, then voting creates the pretense in the minds of those who vote, but does not create the pretense in the minds of those who consider voting to be immoral rationalization for the initiation of violence.

[jpahmad]

The only rebuttal you've attempted is: Voting "seems" like it's legitimizing the state. Are we really resorting to "seems"? I thought this was a philosophy board.

 

 

In any case, we shall wait forever for people to not vote. And if nobody voted, the State wouldn't down their weapons anyway.

 

What precisely is meant by "legitimize". If one means "to make legal" and thereby serve as a universally justifiable defense of action, then voting creates the pretense in the minds of those who vote, but does not create the pretense in the minds of those who consider voting to be immoral rationalization for the initiation of violence.

 

The funny thing is, is that you can't actually observe someone "legitimizing" something.  It's not in the realm of observable behavior.  And...(drum roll) since it is not in the realm of observable behavior, then it is not in the realm of ethics.  

 

The term "legitimize" must be linked to another verb in order to have any meaning.  Just think about, if I called someone on the phone and told them that I was "legitimizing" something, they would have absolutely no idea what I was doing.  

[EclecticIdealist]

The funny thing is, is that you can't actually observe someone "legitimizing" something. It's not in the realm of observable behavior. And...(drum roll) since it is not in the realm of observable behavior, then it is not in the realm of ethics.

 

The term "legitimize" must be linked to another verb in order to have any meaning. Just think about, if I called someone on the phone and told them that I was "legitimizing" something, they would have absolutely no idea what I was doing.

The act of voting legitimizes the violence of those representing themselves as agents of the state acting in accordance with the will of the people. Or put another way, voting reinforces the belief in the minds of the people that the actions of people representing themselves as agents of the state are justified.in short, voting reinforces the belief in opposing moral categories of individuals.

[shirgall]

The act of voting legitimizes the violence of those representing themselves as agents of the state acting in accordance with the will of the people. Or put another way, voting reinforces the belief in the minds of the people that the actions of people representing themselves as agents of the state are justified.in short, voting reinforces the belief in opposing moral categories of individuals.

 

It only legitimizes it being used on the voter who voted for the power, not those voted against it, or the non-voter. 

 

I've always maintained that taxes should only apply to those that vote for them.

[EclecticIdealist]

It only legitimizes it being used on the voter who voted for the power, not those voted against it, or the non-voter.

 

I've always maintained that taxes should only apply to those that vote for them.

Sadly, that's not how it works. The police do not distinguish between those who have voted against it or refrained from voting and those who voted for the initiation of the use of force on the part of agents of the state.

[shirgall]

Sadly, that's not how it works. The police do not distinguish between those who have voted against it or refrained from voting and those who voted for the initiation of the use of force on the part of agents of the state.

 

They feel legitimized by their paycheck. They don't check voting records or turnout reports before making an arrest.

[Will Torbald]

So you want two options, the end result of which is exactly the same as voting or not voting? And if you don't have these options, the end result of which is exactly the same as the options you have, then the options you have are not options?

 

You underestimate the number of people who didn't vote because they didn't want to give a positive vote for someone they didn't like. Trump lost the popular vote after all. Many people would have voted against Clinton instead of in favor of Trump. Psychologically, there's a difference in motivation. Half of the people who can vote, don't. There's a huge gap in motivation. I think the solution is more options.

[jpahmad]

The act of voting legitimizes the violence of those representing themselves as agents of the state acting in accordance with the will of the people. Or put another way, voting reinforces the belief in the minds of the people that the actions of people representing themselves as agents of the state are justified.in short, voting reinforces the belief in opposing moral categories of individuals.

 how do you know it "legitimizes" anything?  Do you ask all of the people who vote how they feel about their vote and why they did it?

The act of voting legitimizes the violence of those representing themselves as agents of the state acting in accordance with the will of the people. 

 

Also, did you process anything I said in my previous post about "legitimizing"?

[NotDarkYet]

The State is morally invalid by definition.  So...

 

• The State's actions are not made morally valid ("legitimized") by voting.  

 

• Nor are the State's actions made morally invalid ("delegitimized") by not voting.

 

So vote, or don't vote.

 

This is a strategic question.

 

-----

 

NOTE:  The only way voting could be legitimate (morally valid) is if you were the only member of the country - and if one of the options was to NOT have a state.

[dsayers]

The funny thing is, is that you can't actually observe someone "legitimizing" something.  It's not in the realm of observable behavior.  And...(drum roll) since it is not in the realm of observable behavior, then it is not in the realm of ethics.  

Since there's a lot of talk about "legitimize," I wanted to point out two things. The first being that I defined it here. Which is odd considering I've been accused of not rebutting it 

 

Secondly, I never claimed that it legitimizing the State is what makes it immoral. Engaging in political voting is immoral because it is deliberately using a credible threat to bind others without their consent AND it legitimizes the State by demonstrating to others that something that only exists in people's minds actually exists and is righteous.

[Gavitor]

Since there's a lot of talk about "legitimize," I wanted to point out two things. The first being that I defined it here. Which is odd considering I've been accused of not rebutting it 

 

Secondly, I never claimed that it legitimizing the State is what makes it immoral. Engaging in political voting is immoral because it is deliberately using a credible threat to bind others without their consent AND it legitimizes the State by demonstrating to others that something that only exists in people's minds actually exists and is righteous.

 

You mean this definition?

 

 

Legitimize doesn't mean make legitimate. It means to make the illegitimate seems legitimate.

 

The definition of legitimize is literally "to make legitimate"...

 

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/legitimize

 

Stop being a fucking sophist just because your argument has no leg to stand on.

 

Also you have NO PROOF whatsoever that voting binds anyone. The fact remains that whether you vote or not is completely irrelevant when it comes to guys with guns initiating force. Remember there are governments that exist where the common rabble isn't allowed to vote at all.

 

The fact that people can use force against you regardless of whether you voted or not should not be ignored. THEY DON'T NEED YOUR PERMISSION!!!!

 

You said so yourself that voting is akin to praying, if that's the case it cannot be immoral. Also because voting in and of itself can be used for a variety of things that are not immoral voting in and of itself cannot be immoral. What is immoral is that actual force that is used against the common people which happens whether you voted for it or not.

[D.D.]

Stop being a fucking sophist just because your argument has no leg to stand on.

This behavior is beneath FDR forum guidelines and that of emotionally regulated deep-thinkers, but sometimes we slip up.

 

I suggest you take some time to reflect on why this topic / thread has effected you and why you reacted this way.

Please come back and post what you learn.  Enjoy the rest of your day.

[jpahmad]

Engaging in political voting is immoral because it is deliberately using a credible threat 

 

This is the first time I have seen you use the term "credible threat" when referring to political voting.  What's going on dsayers?

[NotDarkYet]

1. D-sayers skipped the first step. Namely where:

 

• The "credible threat" starts by deliberately (ab)using us.

 

 

2.  Note the clever conflation of the word "use" with the word "influence".  

 

• A man points a gun at you and you speak to him - - you are not using the gun.  You're influencing him to (hopefully) make a less destructive decision.  

 

 

3.  The shooter's immorality is his own.  Not mine.

 

 

4.  If you believes the state is a choice - then you believe in democracy.

[dsayers]

This is the first time I have seen you use the term "credible threat" when referring to political voting.  What's going on dsayers?

Willful ignorance, likely due to bias confirmation. As YOU know, I once held that political voting was immoral. YOUR thread/video here convinced me otherwise. Then I released an article here (dated 16 Nov) that re-established my position that political voting is immoral, with the concept of credible threat as the keystone.

 

It was said here, in this very thread: link 1, link 2

 

As well as here, prior to this thread: link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6, link 7, link 8 (where the case is made that this is WHY political voting is immoral; also dated 16 Nov 2016)

 

There are 21 more such links that I won't belabor linking. You can search for "credible threat" by dsayers to see for yourself. The first one on record was here (dated 16 Sep 2014). It's not even a controversial position. We know that a person pointing a gun at you is engaging in immorality, taking responsibility away from you coercively, even though their action technically is not binding upon you. Precisely because it is a _____.

[Three]

I wonder to what degree the actions of the Hispanic community taking large amounts of stolen money in addition to political voting "legitimize" the state?

I wonder if Dsayers spends a comparable amount of time bringing his message of non-participation to the hispanic and black community and other leftists, or is it mostly liberty minded white people on internet forums that he lectures for their "immorality" of engaging in political voting? 

[jpahmad]

Willful ignorance, likely due to bias confirmation. As YOU know, I once held that political voting was immoral. YOUR thread/video here convinced me otherwise. Then I released an article here (dated 16 Nov) that re-established my position that political voting is immoral, with the concept of credible threat as the keystone.

 

It was said here, in this very thread: link 1, link 2

 

As well as here, prior to this thread: link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5, link 6, link 7, link 8 (where the case is made that this is WHY political voting is immoral; also dated 16 Nov 2016)

 

There are 21 more such links that I won't belabor linking. You can search for "credible threat" by dsayers to see for yourself. The first one on record was here (dated 16 Sep 2014). It's not even a controversial position. We know that a person pointing a gun at you is engaging in immorality, taking responsibility away from you coercively, even though their action technically is not binding upon you. Precisely because it is a _____

 

 

Your post below form another thread on the same topic, implies that you don't there is a credible threat when it comes to political voting.

 

 

jpahmad, on 18 Nov 2016 - 10:02 AM, said:

 If you don't pay your taxes, you will not immediately go to prison.

If you don't empty the register, you might not immediately get shot. This does nothing to address the fact that there is a credible threat, nor that the emptying of the register is not voluntary because of it. You are grasping for ways to make your conclusion fit instead of being honest.

Here is a quote from dsayer's article:

 

 

"The fact is that we know that a State-enforced policy or politician will initiate the use of force against all within a given geographical area. This would make voting for them a credible threat to bind others without their consent. I do not think the fact that the candidate could decline is sufficient because a reasonable person would expect that they will. Which they do even by accepting a paycheck, which comes from money stolen from people in the name of taxation."

 

Dsayers has agreed that someone voting for a politician who can use the state to initiate force against my will is a credible threat.  Thank you dsayers.  In that case, you should not hold me morally accountable for using the tools available to defend myself against a credible threat.  When under a state of coercion (credible threat as explained in your excerpt) I become an amoral agent.  My amoral self, in the interest of preservation, chooses to use the tool of Donald J Trump.  Whether is works or not doesn't matter.  

[dsayers]

I knew that when facing evidence that your claim was false, you would make no effort to circle back for integrity's sake. I see you're still on about how enslaving 300 million people is either self or defense. Must be because you've never seen anybody debunk that position either. 

 

How can you tell it's a philosophy forum? Because people respond to evidence with downvotes, appeals to emotion, and moving the goalposts.

[EclecticIdealist]

how do you know it "legitimizes" anything?  Do you ask all of the people who vote how they feel about their vote and why they did it?

According to the American concept of government, governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. Thus, participation in the practice of voting legitimizes the actions of that government, just as secession and rebellion against that government demonstrates a lack of consent, thus removing the legitimization.

 

Also, did you process anything I said in my previous post about "legitimizing"?

I processed most of it. That does not mean I agreed with it.

[Gavitor]

This behavior is beneath FDR forum guidelines and that of emotionally regulated deep-thinkers, but sometimes we slip up.

 

I suggest you take some time to reflect on why this topic / thread has effected you and why you reacted this way.

Please come back and post what you learn.  Enjoy the rest of your day.

You're right, sorry bout that.

 

Enjoy the rest of your day also.

 

And sorry Dsayers for calling you a sophist.

[jpahmad]

I knew that when facing evidence that your claim was false, you would make no effort to circle back for integrity's sake. I see you're still on about how enslaving 300 million people is either self or defense. Must be because you've never seen anybody debunk that position either. 

 

How can you tell it's a philosophy forum? Because people respond to evidence with downvotes, appeals to emotion, and moving the goalposts.

 

So why don't you try actually responding to my post next. 

[dsayers]

So why don't you try actually responding to my post next. 

I'm not going to sit down and post a bunch of links of "self-defense" being debunked for somebody that has demonstrated they are only interested in bias confirmation. But I will share this link again for those who are unaware of your confirmation bias.

[jpahmad]

I'm not going to sit down and post a bunch of links of "self-defense" being debunked for somebody that has demonstrated they are only interested in bias confirmation. But I will share this link again for those who are unaware of your confirmation bias.

 

Whatever dsayers.  Have a merry Xmas.